How Pennsylvania Courts Handle Contested Child Support in High-Income Cases

When it comes to Pennsylvania child support disputes, there are issues of fairness and how strictly the child support guidelines are followed. Disputes concerning child support become more complicated when parents have high incomes and when the guidelines do not produce clear results. In this article, we’ll discuss a real Pennsylvania family law case that illustrates how the courts should handle child support disputes when the parents have high incomes and on how strictly child support guidelines should be followed.

Background of the case 

The aforementioned case involved two parents who were dealing with a contested child support case. The father had a very high income, far beyond the upper limits of the Pennsylvania child support guidelines. Since the guidelines have a maximum net income, the trial court had to use a special three-step analysis that is primarily used for high-income cases.

In this case, the trial court did not follow the guidelines and instead implemented a much lower figure. The trial court used the fact that the father had set up trusts for the children. The trial court ordered a lower support figure than what would have been ordered had the court followed the guidelines.

The mother did not think that the trial court ordered the correct amount of child support and decided to appeal the ruling, stating that the trial court misinterpreted Pennsylvania law and departed downward on the father’s support.

The appeal

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania carefully examined the process followed by the trial court regarding the disputed calculation of support. The court again emphasized that in high-income cases, the same process must be followed as set forth in the rules of civil procedure. This process entails establishing the guideline amount, consideration of the reasonable needs of the children, and an evaluation of the appropriateness of deviating from the standard based on specific factors.

In addition, the Superior Court determined that although the trial court has discretion to deviate from the child support guidelines, that discretion is not unlimited. Contributions made by parents for trusts or savings plans for the children are not necessarily determinative for deviating from the guidelines. Child support is for the current needs of the children and not their future needs.

Since the trial court focused too heavily on the presence of the trusts and failed to justify its deviation from the guidelines, the Superior Court ultimately vacated the order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Key takeaways

• Child support guidelines remain relevant in high-income cases.
• Deviations from the guidelines must be justified.
• Voluntary payments are not a replacement for child support.
• Child support orders that are contested are subject to appellate review.

Ultimately, courts are required to abide by the child support calculations unless there is a good reason to deviate. 

Talk to a Philadelphia, PA, Child Support Lawyer Today

The Law Offices of Lauren H. Kane represent the interests of Philadelphia residents who are pursuing a divorce. Call our Philadelphia family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.

Source:

law.justia.com/cases/pennsylvania/supreme-court/2018/19-map-2017.html